Mandira Filozofu

I write the same thing at the beginning of every article, but it is a really interesting movie. Every movie has a special story to tell. No one is the same as the other. We watch different things. It is impossible for us to experience these , it is even very difficult for us to see them, but we see these stories on stages and screens. Every story has different things to tell. This movie is actually a very simple movie. One day, while sitting in a coffee shop, an uncle said: "Actually, you will quit your job, go to the village, and live everything naturally there." It's a movie that can be written based on its words. Although you find the concept simple, it is impossible not to like it. So what does this movie tell and how does it tell it?

He is a very rich businessman, he cannot spare time for himself because of his work, this is a classic type anyway. We are exposed to these characters a lot, especially in movies and TV series. But there is also the Dairy Philosopher. He is the special character of this movie. He lives in a small hut in a small bay. He does animal husbandry, agriculture, and prepares his breakfast from these works. He collects the chicken's eggs and breaks them into the pan. He picks tomatoes from the garden and puts them on a plate. They especially focused on these breakfast scenes. This breakfast is an important part of the Dairy Philosopher's life. We do not know what he consumes in the evening, at noon, or even in winter in this natural environment, and when one thinks about it at first, it does not come to mind. He wonders how this philosopher will survive the winter, especially without a heating system (we haven't seen it, but maybe he has a stove). This businessman wants to buy the land where the philosopher's hut is located by paying millions. The business costs so much money that this man could probably settle in one of the best places in the world and live comfortably, but the philosopher insists on not selling his land.

Really, where is the best place in the world? Monaco? America? Italy? The philosopher already lives in one of the most beautiful bays of the Aegean. He says that no matter what he needs, he can meet it from nature. Money doesn't mean anything to him. Of course, it is possible to see here that he did not make tools such as pans and household items himself and that they were left to him, and therefore there are practical errors in the messages the film wants to convey, but we may have to comment without getting caught up in this.

In order for the western world we live in to perceive a person as "abnormal" in psychology, one of the most important characteristics that this person must have is "not being productive". So what is being unproductive? What do you produce? Production here is not just about producing a product, using it or selling it. Creating can also mean introducing a behavior that will be useful in the system that people have created. For example, working at the hotel reception is a form of productivity according to the western world. You produce a service here. Productivity is very critical for the western world, and groups of people who have lost their productivity even though they are not sick are labeled "abnormal". One of the most important examples of these groups is LGBT gender groups. Not being able to produce children is an act of counterproductivity, and these people have been labeled "abnormal" for centuries. Currently, people with "anomalies" such as autism and schizophrenia, who can live more normal lives with the increase in humanism, are described as "sick" by the psychology science dominated by the Western world, because they are "not productive". Of course, the organization of these people will change this situation in the near future, but this is the subject of another article. If you understand what I mean, you understand its connection to the movie.

Robinson Crusoe ? Although they seem basically the same as the philosopher in this movie, we can say that their lives are diametrically opposed. The dairy philosopher is a person who lives day by day. He does not have a working routine, he sleeps when he is sleepy and wakes up when he is awake. He eats when he is hungry. Doesn't do anything extra. He lives by thinking about periods of one month at most. It is intertwined with nature. However, for Robinson, nature has been placed at his service. No matter how much he produces, Robinson does not stop and continues to produce more. It doesn't need it at all, and maybe it never will, but it will never stop production. He continues to work throughout his life. One of the first things he does as soon as he lands on the island is a watch to help him keep track of time. There is no need to explain further. We can compare the difference between these two to the west-east dilemma. For Western people, nature is just a tool. He gets his needs from nature and is ready to exploit nature until nature will not destroy him. However, eastern people have the concept of "mother nature". Nature is not a tool. It is a special spirit with which man lives in the world. That's why animals and plants are more respected in these cultures. For them, a cow is much more than meat and milk, while in western cultures, cows consist only of meat and milk. On the other hand, it is thought-provoking that veganism is much more common in the West today.

Represents "the human being in touch with nature " in this movie. The movie is incredibly bad. Even though what it wants to tell is good, this is a really bad movie in terms of both the technique of the movie it uses to convey this and the parallelism of its narrative with its vision. However, when evaluating the idea contained in it, it is necessary to look at it more objectively and from a distance. When we look at internet access rates, both Turkey and the majority of people on the internet look at things from the West's perspective. According to them, if you do not produce value for people, you are living in vain. So, while Crusoe is a successful gentleman, Mustafa Ali is nothing but a crazy philosopher. I think it is necessary to look at it more objectively from a distance.

Now let's talk about the rest of the movie, the trash. The film is a film that fails to do anything except the idea it tells, or rather the idea it tries to explain. First of all, numerous logical errors in the scenario stand out. There are numerous logical errors in the main relationship of the film, the businessman and philosopher, and their dialogues. The businessman already has the power to stop working whenever he wants, with his savings. With the money he has, he can buy and eat the most natural, freshest things from any cooperative, or even better, from a farm. He can settle wherever he wants and continue his life that way. While he has such an opportunity, the anti-thesis that this man provides us is not correct. Although the sentences we heard from Mustafa Ali's mouth, such as "I am against work" and "I am against money", are read in a way that is far from the western paradigm, they are not plausible ideas. First of all, he did not make the tools at home, it is obvious that he was not interested in mining, naturally these were bought with money. Moreover, even though he lives day by day, he is aware that he has to work hard to maintain such a life. So, although the idea is good, both the dialogues and the structure of the film handle the issues very poorly. The movie doesn't hit you hard. It fuels the ideas he already had in his mind, "I should settle in a village", for a while, and then they begin to be forgotten. Here, the money could have been criticized in a much more creative way, perhaps going between pre- and post-agricultural communities, but it should not be forgotten that this situation requires a very difficult and striking scenario. The images of the movie are nice, but if you throw the camera in Mugla, you will already take beautiful images. They don't need to try too hard. The music of the movie is deplorable. Although there are no beautiful pieces except one, these pieces look as if they were bought from a website at a cheap price.

Let's talk about the acting. He played the role of the messman really well, and his face was also very suitable for playing this role at that time . However, I have to point out that I did not see the same performance from Öztekin. Of course, the film's crappy cinematography has a lot to do with it, but there's nothing you can do about it. The remaining characters do not mean anything in terms of script and screen time anyway. They just reflect the comedic elements of the movie. Moreover, there are a few actors who really can't handle the Aegean accent. If they had actually hired peasants instead of choosing famous actors, these people would have played better. Acting, unfortunately, is a profession that gets much more value than it deserves. Of course, people know that acting is about looks more than talent, but this seems like too much. People really faint. It was especially a bad choice for the director to use the same names in his other famous works .

Good idea get thrown away with a disgraceful movie, was the first movie I evaluated as a "waste of time" and "don't watch" on the site. Anyway, good luck to those who will watch it.